25 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe world always changes. Climate change is a fact of life that has been happening before man existed and it will continue. Why would it bother me? If you can prove climate change made winters from the last 2 years unusually cold here in MI I'll admit it bothers me, but until then it isn't bothering me or anyone else. You seem to be bothered because of worry alone. Your life is not being affected, right? Your home is not under water. Why are you bothered?
Then just what are you bitching about? You don't deny the facts that the world is changing. It doesn't seem to bother you.
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainRead the piece on the break up of Arctic ice. One of the effects of that is to alter jet stream flows around the world and what we saw this winter is what will probably be the norm now, the Arctic Jet steam bending down deep into the US every year from here on out. That is only one of the effects of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. There will be mass extinctions of life forms that evolved to live on ice flows. None of that reaches you either I suppose. Who gives a shyte about stupid sea lions and such.
The world always changes. Climate change is a fact of life that has been happening before man existed and it will continue. Why would it bother me? If you can prove climate change made winters from the last 2 years unusually cold here in MI I'll admit it bothers me, but until then it isn't bothering me or anyone else. You seem to be bothered because of w ...[text shortened]... one. Your life is not being affected, right? Your home is not under water. Why are you bothered?
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseSea lions, seals and walruses survived the Pliocene so I think they will survive this mild warming.
Read the piece on the break up of Arctic ice. One of the effects of that is to alter jet stream flows around the world and what we saw this winter is what will probably be the norm now, the Arctic Jet steam bending down deep into the US every year from here on out. That is only one of the effects of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. There will be mass exti ...[text shortened]... s. None of that reaches you either I suppose. Who gives a shyte about stupid sea lions and such.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/32816/20150214/oldest-fur-seal-fills-5-million-year-gap-in-evolutionary-history-of-sea-lions-and-fur-seals.htm
26 Apr 15
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainHave you actually bothered to read the link?
Sea lions, seals and walruses survived the Pliocene so I think they will survive this mild warming.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/32816/20150214/oldest-fur-seal-fills-5-million-year-gap-in-evolutionary-history-of-sea-lions-and-fur-seals.htm
If you had, you should have noticed that the fossil they have found is of an EXTINCT species ( Eotaria crypta ) of fur seal.
I.e. this particular species of fur seal did NOT survive to the modern day and global warming may have (we don't yet know ) caused its demise but, regardless of whether it did or did not, this species certainly won't "survive this mild warming" (your above quote ) because it has already failed to survive.
You have scored and own goal.
27 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyYou missed my whole point. Here is an excerpt from the article:
Have you actually bothered to read the link?
If you had, you should have noticed that the fossil they have found is of an EXTINCT species ( Eotaria crypta ) of fur seal.
I.e. this particular species of fur seal did NOT survive to the modern day and global warming may have (we don't yet know ) caused its demise but, regardless of whether it did or did ...[text shortened]... ur above quote ) because it has already failed to survive.
You have scored and own goal.
"This was very exciting as fur seals and sea lions -- the family Otariidae -- have a limited fossil record that, up until now, extended back to about 10 to 12 million years ago. Yet we know that their fossil record must go back to around 16 to 17 million years ago or so because walruses -- the closest modern relative of the otariids -- have a record reaching back that far," said Boessenecker.
All living sea lions today survived the Pliocene. The article is about a missing link and extinct species are part of that. The article is not about global warming. I posted it because it proves sea lions and seals were around for many millions of years. Since those that have not gone extinct are still with us it is unlikely that they will go extinct because of this recent warming period that started 300 years ago.
My point has been made. Extinction does not prove me wrong at all. I know you would like to fool people into thinking otherwise, but you have failed.
27 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. You clearly said;
You missed my whole point.... .
" Sea lions, seals and walruses survived the Pliocene so I think they will survive this mild warming."
And you then gave that link clearly as the premise of that 'argument'.
So your 'point' clearly was, because they survived a greater warming than what is predicted from man made warming, they will survive this man made warming. (do you deny this? if not, explain what your point was from that post... )
The problem with that 'argument' is, of course, that the fossil they found was of an extinct species of seal thus this is no evidence that the current surviving species in the modern day will survive the man made warming. So your deduction from their finding said in that link is clearly invalid i.e your inference is clearly false.
Extinction does not prove me wrong...
Your conclusion, no. Not by itself. You can have a false inference with a conclusion that just happens to be correct nevertheless. But the extinction also certainly doesn't prove your conclusion right. And your inference is clearly completely wrong precisely because they were talking about an extinct species.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyAlso, the issue is not just about the amount of warming but the RATE of warming.
Nope. You clearly said;
" Sea lions, seals and walruses survived the Pliocene so I think they will survive this mild warming."
And you then gave that link clearly as the premise of that 'argument'.
So your 'point' clearly was, because they survived a greater warming than what is predicted from man made warming, they will survive this man made warming. ( ...[text shortened]... is clearly completely wrong precisely because they were talking about an extinct species.
The faster the CO2 build-up, and the faster the consequent warming, the harder it
is for ecosystems to adapt. [and this is on top of any and all other effects we are
having on the biosphere, with pollution, changes in water use, fertilizer run-off,
acid rain, ocean acidification, over-fishing, changes in land-use and biodiversity from
farming and logging activities... ect ect]
Given a slow climate/environment change, species can move, evolve, and adapt.
But rapid climate change is much harder to cope with.
Fixating on the overall SIZE of the change, misses out the often more important role that
the RATE of change plays.
27 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeEXACTLY! 🙂 Which is why his comparison of that global warming event with the current one wouldn't have been a fair comparison anyway even if, hypothetically, that species had survived to the present day.
Given a slow climate/environment change, species can move, evolve, and adapt.
But rapid climate change is much harder to cope with.
Originally posted by humyNitpick all you want. I am correct. Your argument is like saying homo erectus is extinct so man is not very adaptable. You don't have a point here. Sea lions survived the Pliocene just as I said. Polar Bears survived it too.
Nope. You clearly said;
" Sea lions, seals and walruses survived the Pliocene so I think they will survive this mild warming."
And you then gave that link clearly as the premise of that 'argument'.
So your 'point' clearly was, because they survived a greater warming than what is predicted from man made warming, they will survive this man made warming. ( ...[text shortened]... is clearly completely wrong precisely because they were talking about an extinct species.
Predictions of extinctions by sonhouse are baseless nonsense from a loony alarmist. You are an alarmist that just denies it because you know I am right and can't admit you were wrong. Alarmist predictions are bunk. I have proven that time and time again.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Cenozoic_Paleobiology.htm
From the link above:
"Africa’s hoofed animals and primates were notably successful, and the australopithecines (some of the first hominids) appeared late in the Pliocene The Pliocene seas were thrived with mammals such as seals and sea lions."
Sea lions did fine during the Pliocene. Sonhouse was just spouting alarmist myths as usual and you are defending his alarmist rhetoric.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudge"pollution, changes in water use, fertilizer run-off,
Also, the issue is not just about the amount of warming but the RATE of warming.
The faster the CO2 build-up, and the faster the consequent warming, the harder it
is for ecosystems to adapt. [and this is on top of any and all other effects we are
having on the biosphere, with pollution, changes in water use, fertilizer run-off,
acid rain, ocean ...[text shortened]... ll SIZE of the change, misses out the often more important role that
the RATE of change plays.
acid rain, ocean acidification, over-fishing, changes in land-use and biodiversity from
farming and logging activities... ect ect]"
Now you are pointing out things that are caused by man that don't involve global warming. It seems to me you have a problem with our species rather than only climate change. Are you one of those depopulation nuts that sees man as a threat to the planet?
The rate of warming now is disputable. Global warming alarmists use temp readings tainted with the heat island effect when it suits them. Cherry picking data is too common these days. This recent warming started 300 years ago so it is nothing that started with the burning of fossil fuels. If climate change is so rapid right now why are these arctic species still doing okay? They are not about to become extinct despite oil spills, over hunting and habitat loss. You are just another alarmist that is like the boy who cried wolf. If you keep crying about this people will begin to ignore you and for good reason. There is no threat of extinction. There are only alarmists like you, humy and sonhouse making mountains out of mole hills. Man threatens species all of the time, but it isn't because of anthropogenic climate change.
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/01/28/the-myth-of-ocean-acidification-by-carbon-dioxide/
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope;
Your argument is like saying homo erectus is extinct so man is not very adaptable.
Just like that extinct fur seal, Homo erectus didn't have to deal with the relatively rapid global warming caused by man.
+ plus man can only be described as being far more adaptive than fur seals because we are both far more intelligent than fur seals and with that intelligence giving us a great ability to use technological and cultural adaptations to adapt to a relatively rapidly changing environment like no fur seal nor any other animal on Earth could.
+ plus our greater intelligence would presumably give us far greater adaptivity than our Homo erectus ancestors who had much smaller brains than us. In contrast, there presumably isn't a massive change in brain size and intelligence between modern fur seals and that extinct one.
You fail again. Try again.